The palgrave international handbook of a 108

98

A. Nurse

mental distress and not just the physical discomfort or pain associated with
cruelty offences under previous legislation’ (Nurse and Ryland 2013, p. 9).
Unnecessary suffering can thus be caused either by taking action which
causes unnecessary suffering or by failing to take appropriate steps to prevent
suffering and being neglectful of an individual non-human companion.
Inflicting pain, which may occur for example in cruelty cases, is not in itself
sufficient to constitute unnecessary suffering even where extreme pain is
caused, as the pain may be caused for allegedly ‘beneficial’ reasons such as
in veterinary surgery to alleviate more serious harm caused to an animal. Pain
may also be a by-product of other medical treatment where temporary pain
or discomfort is caused with the aim of reducing overall suffering. It becomes
necessary, therefore, to distinguish between necessary suffering caused to a
non-human companion and unnecessary suffering; in effect, that which is
excessive or avoidable. In making this distinction the courts are able to take
into account a number of factors such as whether the suffering could have
been avoided or whether it was incidental to a legitimate purpose. Factors to
be considered include whether the suffering could have been reduced, was
carried out in compliance with legislation, the conditions of a licence or a
code of practice issued on a statutory basis. Nurse and Ryland (2014, p. 3)
note, for example, that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 does not apply to any
act lawfully carried out under the auspices of the Animals (Scientific
Procedures) Act 1986 which provides authorisation for scientific use of
non-human animals, notwithstanding the ethical and moral objections that
may exist in respect of such procedures. The courts might also consider the
purpose of the conduct, the proportionality of the suffering, and whether the
conduct that caused the suffering was that of a reasonably competent and
humane person.

Singer (1995, pp. 9–13) notes that the Committee on Cruelty to
Animals set up in 1951 was satisfied that animals can suffer from acute
fear and terror. UK animal welfare law has arguably incorporated utilitarian
principles of ‘equal’ consideration for humans and non-human animals in
respect of minimising pain and suffering so far as is practicable in order that
we make our lives as free from cruelty as possible and avoid the infliction of
pain and suffering on animals and humans. Radford (2001, pp. 198–199)
argues that historical definitions of cruelty dating back to the UK 1911 and
1912 protection of animals acts, which included the concept of ill-treating
or terrifying an animal, indicate ‘that Parliament intended cruelty to
encompass the infliction of both psychological and physical suffering’.
The concept of unnecessary suffering is thus wide in scope and includes
mental as well as physical suffering which incorporates both acts and